Natural Born Killers vs. Pulp Fiction
Mikael Forsell
Film Festival. I'm afraid both will sell out quick. Which one should I go
see?
Mike in Stockholm
Adam Carlyle Ebmeier
I personally liked NBK MUCH better than Pulp Fiction, though both are very
good. Pulp Fiction is a good half hour longer, but NBK was more intense,
(perhaps because it was shorter). Music on NBK was also much better, IMHO.
Either way, tells us what you think;)
-ACE
--
****************************************eah...@rigel.oac.uci.edu*************
* ACE "And his Word shall *
* University of California, Irvine carry Death eternal...." *
* Department of Philosophy -Stilgar, DUNE *
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
Dan
--
Daniel Jude Bredy
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt3655a
Internet: gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
Jon Ingi Ingimundarson
COMMON! See 'em both!
In my option Pulp Fiction was better, but I still thought NBK was one
hell of a movie. Too bad they didn't release the Directors Cut here
in Europe.
I'm a little pissed, though, that NBK was shown in a big theater with
THX and Dolby Digital Stereo, while I had to watch Pulp Fiction in
a small art theater, with bad seats and low temperature. They even
showed the first two minutes out of focus (the whole restaurant scene)
and the last reel was shaking so much that I thought Hekla had
started again.
jon ingi
University of Iceland
>Mike in Stockholm
Henrik Jonsson
Aman Verjee <bkm...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
<description of NBK deleted>
Mikael? I haven't seen PF, but I've seen NBK and I can tell you, NBK rocks
wonderfully! Me and a friend who saw it gave it a 10 out of 10 rating. (We
can't wait for PF, though:) The switches between 8mm, 16mm, videocamera shots
and 32 mm did indeed make sense in most of the situations, IMO. NBK is the
best love story I've seen in ages...:-)
>Go see 'Pulp Fiction'.
See them both...multiple times! :-)
/Henrik
--
To post or not to post, that is the question...Whether 'tis nobler on the 'net
to suffer, the flames from outrageous loonies or to press 'F' against a sea of
slander and by opposing end them? To send KILL signal; to sleep(1); No more...
---*** d1...@dtek.chalmers.se ***===---===*** h...@cd.chalmers.se ***---
Asharris
be compared, but thought both were great.
Ashley Harris
New Orleans
John L Redford
sense of humor, and NBK is one made by someone without. Or rather,
Stone mistakes his thudding sense of satire for humor. Tarantino's
characters are so absurdly cool that they're funny in spite of the
horrible things they do. They're Coyotes in a Roadrunner cartoon.
When Stone goes for absurdities, it comes off as just stupid. Go to
the movie by the manic young video clerk and forget about the aging
preacher Stone.
--
/jlr (John Redford, j...@world.std.com)
Christine S Ng
|>
|> Let me save you some trouble by telling you exactly what NBK is about.
|> color to handheld to still photos, with no rhyme or reason.
You have obviously missed the rhyme and reasons. When it was in black &
white, we saw the subconcious of the characters. When it was in colored,
we saw the consious part of their mind. This part was very well done
and it was *not randomly* put together as many people seem to think.
Every switching had some inteneded meaning. I don't think I got them
all since I have seen it only once.
|>
|> Go see 'Pulp Fiction'.
|>
This I agree.
|> Aman
Christine
Stargazer
>
> No question. See PULP FICTION, then read Tarantino's original script for
> NATURAL BORN KILLERS.
>
Exactly!!!!!!!!
--Stargazer
Paula J. Vitaris
I'll second that. Definitely "Pulp Fiction."
-- Paula
Kevin Locci
>Both NBK and Pulp Fiction are premiering here in Sweden at the Stockholm
>Film Festival. I'm afraid both will sell out quick. Which one should I go
>see?
>Mike in Stockholm
It depends on what you like...if you like flashy productions and outright
easy to understand symbolism - NBK.
If you like great dialogue, interesting non-linear direction and comedy -
Pulp Fiction.
Personally, I'd go with Pulp Fiction. It affects you on more levels.
Kevin
Grant Friel
>
>Pulp Fiction is a movie about amoral psychotics made by someone with a
>sense of humor, and NBK is one made by someone without. Or rather,
>Stone mistakes his thudding sense of satire for humor. Tarantino's
Although I haven't seen NBK, one of the points which has been made by
a number of people is that much of the humour/satire is in the irony of
the film - something which Americans don't seen to have a grasp of :)
ie. Stone uses a means of satire which is quite alien to US audiences.
Grant
Aman Verjee
Let me save you some trouble by telling you exactly what NBK is about.
Stone ineptly switches from 8 mm to 16 mm to 35 mm to black-and-white to
color to handheld to still photos, with no rhyme or reason. He blames
American media culture for being shallow, superficial, and demonic.
There's a neat parable of a snake, the moral of which has been done to
death in 'Skin Deep' and 'The Crying Game'.
Go see 'Pulp Fiction'.
Aman
Todd Vaziri
No question. See PULP FICTION, then read Tarantino's original script for
NATURAL BORN KILLERS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Todd Vaziri tva...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu |
| |
| "You shoot me in a dream, you better wake up and apologize." |
| *Reservoir Dogs |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Reeves
:
Paula
I am really shocked that you feel the way you do about NBK as opposed to PF. There were a few good scenes in PF, like the needle in the heart, the toaster. But get real can any of it really compete with the action and portrail of two ruthless Mass Murders. They are demi-gods (so they thought), they were unstoppable, uncontainable, it was art.
Bri
I suggest you see it again at the $1 movie in ATL, I'm gonna see it everynight I can.
The Automanipulator
something--why does everyone INSIST on comparing NBK to Pulp Fiction? I'm
assuming that it's because QT wrote the script to both, but Stone changed
(read: murdered) the script to NBK. QT distanced himself from the film,
receiving only (at his choice) a Story By credit. The reason that QT did
this was because Stone changed it so much that it really no longer
resembled a QT kind of script. The films were nothing alike, QT distanced
himself from the project, so why the constant comparisons? Quite frankly,
Stone took a pretty decent story and destroyed it with his overbearing
directing style. NBK sucked--PF slayed. But that's not the point. The
point is this--PF is a Tarantino film, and NBK was a Stone film (and a
really bad one, at that). So stop comparing them!
varn...@osu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------
"Prepare your hiney for another blast from the spank ray!"
-Space Ghost
"Hamsters are cute and cuddly--cuddle this and you'll never
play the guitar again."
-John Cleese
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike D'Angelo
> OK, I've kept quiet on this long enough, but I've got to say
>something--why does everyone INSIST on comparing NBK to Pulp Fiction? I'm
>assuming that it's because QT wrote the script to both, but Stone changed
>(read: murdered) the script to NBK. QT distanced himself from the film,
>receiving only (at his choice) a Story By credit. The reason that QT did
>this was because Stone changed it so much that it really no longer
>resembled a QT kind of script. The films were nothing alike, QT distanced
>himself from the project, so why the constant comparisons? Quite frankly,
>Stone took a pretty decent story and destroyed it with his overbearing
>directing style. NBK sucked--PF slayed. But that's not the point. The
>point is this--PF is a Tarantino film, and NBK was a Stone film (and a
>really bad one, at that). So stop comparing them!
It's human nature to compare and contrast things that have even a vague
similarity, regardless of whether you think it's "appropriate." MARY SHELLEY'S
FRANKENSTEIN and INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE don't even have the tenuous link of
being based on scripts by the same writer, and yet wait and see how often
they're mentioned in the same post when they both after Nov. 11th (I think
that's when INTERVIEW opens).
Should we not compare BODY HEAT and DOUBLE INDEMNITY because one is a Lawrence
Kasdan film and the other is a Billy Wilder film? Seems silly to me.
Mike D'Angelo
Tisch School of the Arts, NYU
"No, no...you're not that upset." --Johnny Depp as ED WOOD
Paul Garden
I heard a nasty runour that this film has been banned in most of the UK.
Is this true, and if so, what are their reasons? (Apart from the fact
that it is very sick!)
Paul.
--
Sung H. Kim
(Christine S Ng) wrote:
Of course Oliver Stone had reasons for doing what he did, but just
because there was a rhyme or reason for things in "Natural Born
Killers", that doesn't mean it worked, or that the 'messages' of
these cinematic devices reached the audience.
Maybe you are right about the b&w and color switches, though I think
you are generous and one hella astute person if you got that from
watching it once. But what was the rhyme or reason for going from
8mm, 16mm, 35mm to video, etc.? Hell if I know.
I don't mind working a little while watching a movie, but by the time
the movie ended, I was annoyed, to say the least, cause I couldn't
figure out. Of course, the real reason I was annoyed was not because
of the flashy use of cinematic tools, but because I got the moral
'message' half way through the movie, and by the time the movie ended,
I felt stooopid to have sat through the lecture...
Cinematically, it just seemed to me like a showing-off in the grandest
scale...
>
> |>
> |> Go see 'Pulp Fiction'.
> |>
>
> This I agree.
>
>
> |> Aman
>
>
> Christine
Peace!
--Sung H. Kim
Andrew Welsh
It's been refused a certificate here in the UK mainly because of all the
violence in the film. However, all the violence didn't stop me from falling
asleep in the middle of it on a recent trip to the US (during the really
tedious interview in the jail).
andrew
--
Andrew Welsh (and...@bnr.ca) - All views in this posting are mine alone
'Reality,' sa Molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder'
DANNY KIM
people who happened to like murdering. Mickey and Mallory were...get
this..simple. Pulp Fiction does not dwelve very deep into the lives of
Vincent Vega or his counterpart, nor anyone else, but Tarantino focuses
more on plot manipulation than Stone did with Natural Born Killers. This
simple element makes Pulp Fiction more entertaining than Natural Born
Killers. The easy judgment: watch each movie a hundred times, and see
which one you're sick of more. I guarantee that you'll still be seeing
things in Pulp Fiction that you didn't notice twenty screenings ago. On
the other hand, you'll know Mallory's dress size by the time you get to
screening forty.
Danny Kim
Brian Reeves (bre...@st6000.sct.edu) wrote:
: :
: Paula
DANNY KIM
it's supposed to be an MTV type movie, but cut cut cut cut...it was
coherent, and fluid, which took away from the plot itself. I liked the
film, but comparing it to Pulp Fiction is way out of line. Pulp Fiction
had stories set in vignettes, and each character was much more intriguing
than either Mickey or Mallory...Vincent Vega, Wallace and his wife,
Butch, the gunshop owner and his cop(Plus that weird as hell leather clad
guy), and Samuel L. Jackson's character. It was simply better.
Danny Kim
Brian Reeves (bre...@st6000.sct.edu) wrote:
: :
: Paula